Mitt Romney’s inaugural TV ad of the 2012 campaign aired today in New Hampshire just as President Obama traveled to the state, but the ad immediately came under fire from Democrats and fact-checkers for incorrectly quoting Obama.

Politifact, which monitors the accuracy of campaign statements, gave Romney’s ad a “Pants on fire” rating.

The Romney video uses footage from Obama’s trip to New Hampshire in 2008. In the ad, text rolls over the screen reading, “On October 16, 2008, Barack Obama visited New Hampshire. He promised he would fix the economy. He failed.”

As video footage shows vacated business and foreclosed homes, Obama can be heard saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

But the ad does not make clear that in the speech Obama was actually quoting an aide to his Republican opponent at the time, *Sen. John McCain.

The Romney campaign did not deny*that it took the president’s words out of context and even provided Obama’s full quote in a press release accompanying the ad: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

It’s a reference to an anonymous quote by a McCain adviser that appeared in an Oct. 2008 New York Daily News article.

“Now, the tables have turned – President Obama and his campaign are doing exactly what candidate Obama criticized,” the Romney campaign said in a statement. “President Obama and his team don’t want to talk about the economy and have tried to distract voters from his abysmal economic record.”

Democrats pounced on the ad as misleading.

“I mean, what — seriously? I mean, an ad in which they deliberately distort what the president said? I mean, it’s a rather remarkable way to start, and an unfortunate way to start,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters during the trip up to New Hampshire.

Romney’s campaign spent less than $150,000 to run the ad in media markets in New Hampshire, but it has already gotten a far wider airing on cable news and on the Internet.[/release]

Reminds me of when Colbert made fun of another GOP candidate who did the same thing, only he made it seem even more like a movie trailer, even used camera shaking and after affect filters to make it sorta blue (like The Dark Knight)

Reminds me of when Colbert made fun of another GOP candidate who did the same thing, only he made it seem even more like a movie trailer, even used camera shaking and after affect filters to make it sorta blue (like The Dark Knight)

It's still throwing away your vote. By voting for an independent you could cause a shittier candidate to win office than the one that's already in there.

If people had voted for Al Gore instead of third-party candidates in 2000, Bush would have never become president and the last ten years of American history would be completely different.

if you are not going to vote, you might as well vote for any independent
independents only take the votes of people who would have otherwise voted for a mainstream candidate

people somehow think that every person who voted for an independent would have otherwise voted for, say, Al Gore
that's not necessarily the case, because voting isn't compulsory in the US, and quite a few of those people wouldn't have voted otherwise

It's still throwing away your vote. By voting for an independent you could cause a shittier candidate to win office than the one that's already in there.

If people had voted for Al Gore instead of third-party candidates in 2000, Bush would have never become president and the last ten years of American history would be completely different.

It's not fucking throwing away your vote, it's bringing America one step closer to abandoning the ridiculous system we have going now. If everyone voted for an independent instead of not voting at all, we'd be a lot better off.

my point was that if you dislike both parties, you can vote for an independent so that one party loses by more

Edited:

if you are not going to vote, you might as well vote for any independent
independents only take the votes of people who would have otherwise voted for a mainstream candidate

people somehow think that every person who voted for an independent would have otherwise voted for, say, Al Gore
that's not necessarily the case, because voting isn't compulsory in the US, and quite a few of those people wouldn't have voted otherwise

I may be idealistic, but I hate these dirty tricks that politicians play on their public to defame their opposition. If they truly cared about their country, they would let truth prevail such that their country gains the government that the citizenry really want, as opposed to the government that they think they want. If this is the only way that a candidate can get votes, things need to change.
I have a feeling that if all forms of character assassination were outlawed in politics then more effective administration would occur. Then again, I also agree that these people have the right in free speech to bear the consequences of their libel.
I could also be completely wrong, and that an ideal government should slander, conceal and cheat its country towards prosperity. I can't say that we're witnessing that working though.